In what follows, I first provide a short summary statement of the prompt for the first principal paper.
Then I give further explanation of the prompt, tips for approaching the task of writing the paper, and more
on what I expect from your final submitted draft. Please read this carefully on your own. Do not rely solely
on my discussion of this prompt in class, detailed though it may be.
The task of your first principal paper is two-fold. Once you have chosen a scholarly work on which to
focus, (1) you will attempt to frame the central claims and arguments of that work against the background
of Kim’s discussion of the identity theory in the fourth chapter of his textbook, and then (2) you will level
one criticism of a claim or argument made by the author of the scholarly work you have chosen.
Everything in this paragraph so far needs to be explained much more carefully. In particular, I will identify
the scholarly works you may choose to focus on. I will explain the first task—that is, the task of “framing�
the central claims and arguments of the scholarly work you choose against the background of Kim’s
discussion of the identity theory. And I will explain what I want when I ask you to level a criticism against
the scholarly work you have chosen.
You should choose just one of two possible articles. Both articles are extremely influential papers in the
development of the psychoneural type identity theory of mind. They are: “Sensations and Brain Processes�
by J. J. C. Smart (1959), and “Is Consciousness a Brain Process?� by U. T. Place (1956). While the articles
by Smart and Place differ from each other in many respects, both devote at least some energy to the tasks
of articulating more carefully the identity thesis (i.e., what one is claiming when one embraces the
psychoneural type identity theory of mind), how one might argue in favor of that thesis, and how one
might defend the thesis against arguments that can be described either as arguments against the identity
thesis or arguments in favor of dualism. When reading these essays for the first time, you should work to
identify the main goals and the main theses of their articles and to identify the portions of their essays that
take up the tasks just mentioned. PDF copies of these essays are available on Canvas immediately following
the PDF of this prompt.
Once you have chosen either the Smart or the Place article as the scholarly work on which you will focus
your attention, you will need to read (or re-read) the article with an eye toward addressing the main tasks of
your principal paper (the tasks introduced above in the second paragraph from the top of this page).
The first main task of your principal paper is framing the central claims and arguments of either Smart or
Place against the background of Kim’s discussion of the identity theory. Let me explain what I mean here.
In chapter 4 of his textbook, Kim discusses the psychoneural identity theory and he does so by
approaching this topic in three ways. Kim attempts to articulate the identity thesis—that is, he attempts to
state clearly what a proponent of the identity theory is claiming. (We mean the same thing when we speak
of the identity “thesis� and the identity “theory.�) Kim then discusses a variety of distinct arguments that
have been offered in support of the identity thesis. Finally, Kim describes some prominent criticisms of the
identity thesis. (And it is worth noting that in describing some of these criticisms, Kim provides further
development of the thesis itself. That is, he gives us more information about what the identity thesis is
claiming. For example, he tells us that the identity thesis, if true, is necessarily true.)
Given Kim’s discussion and how it is organized, one might attempt to bring the treatment of the identity
theory by either Smart or Place in line with Kim’s discussion by (A) exploring the extent to which the
identity thesis described by the article (by Smart or Place) matches the identity thesis described by Kim,
and (B) explaining which of the arguments described by Kim best matches the arguments in favor of the
identity thesis described by either Smart or Place. Discharging these two tasks is what I mean when I ask
you to frame the central claims and arguments of either Smart or Place against the background of Kim’s
discussion.
Page 2 of 4
However, please keep in mind the following: Tasks (A) and (B) described in the paragraph immediately
above might be complicated by a number of possibilities. For example, it might turn out that the argument
in favor of the identity theory offered by one of the authors will not match with any of the arguments
described by Kim. If that is your determination (and you defend it well), this result is perfectly fine. For
example, one might plausibly suggest that to the extent to which Place formulates an argument in favor of
the identity theory, it is not clear that it fits well with any of the three or four types of arguments Kim
proposes. Indeed, one might also reasonably ask whether Place actually offers any argument in favor of the
identity theory. These are issues you will need to address in order to discharge task (B) above (if you chose
Place’s article; I simply used Place as an example, but the same holds for Smart’s essay).
Let us turn now to the second main task of your principal paper. Here I want you to level one criticism
against the article you have chosen. The criticism you make can take up any aspect of that article. For
example, your criticism need not address anything you have discussed in the first part of your principal
paper. But your criticism should have a clear and relatively narrow focus. That is, I want you to focus
closely on just one claim or one argument made by the author and restrict your discussion to that single
aspect of the article. I will give some examples so that you have a good idea of what I mean here. You
could criticize one of Smart’s replies to the various objections he considers in favor of dualism. You could
criticize Place’s distinction between the ‘is’ of composition and the ‘is’ of definition. You could argue that
either Smart or Place has made a crucial mistake in his formulation of the identity thesis. Whatever
criticism you make, work to ensure that you focus on a single, easily identifiable aspect of the article. It is a
mistake to frame your criticism too broadly. My suspicion is that you will need fewer words to complete
this second main task of your principal paper than you needed to complete the first main task. But I have
no firm expectations in this respect.
Effectively executing all parts of your principal paper will require that you undertake the right sorts of
discussions in the right sort of way. Accordingly, I will next discuss various characteristics I think your final
paper should have. Broadly, there are two categories of desiderata I want to discuss: general features every
good philosophy paper should have and some more specific features a paper will have if it is to satisfy this
particular assignment. I will begin with the latter.
In order to discharge the tasks put to you by this particular paper prompt, you will need to provide
adequate explanation of the points you are making. For example, suppose you have chosen Smart’s article
and you are now undertaking the task of matching the argument Smart offers in favor of the identity thesis
with one of the arguments that Kim describes. It would be wildly insufficient simply to write: “The
argument that Smart gives is what Kim calls the ‘argument from simplicity’.� To discharge this task
effectively, you will need to explain your claims in detail. Doing so in this case will at a minimum include (i)
describing to the reader Smart’s argument, as he presents it, (ii) describing Kim’s version of the argument
from simplicity (or the relevant variation of that argument), and (iii) providing justification for the claim
that these arguments sufficiently match each other. In general, when explaining concepts, ideas, and
arguments, it is worthwhile to approach the task with a certain imagined audience in mind. I typically
recommend you imagine another undergraduate student to be your audience. (You may assume a little bit
of philosophical background, but do not assume a close familiarity with the texts you are discussing. This is
a good habit even for scholars working in professional contexts.)
More generally, you want your paper to be well organized, to lead the reader carefully through your
discussion, and to ensure that the reader understands the basic conceptual components of your discussion.
To this end, your completed paper will likely contain sections that accomplish the following tasks: (a) Give
an introduction that explains to the reader what the paper is about (your topic), what your thesis is (that is,
what you aim to accomplish), and how your paper will be organized. (b) At the appropriate stages in your
paper, review for the reader the key concepts and claims that are under discussion. As I already indicated
above, you should probably imagine the audience of your paper as being intelligent undergraduate
Page 3 of 4
students—someone who has a healthy interest in philosophy and some general background, but who will
likely not be intimately familiar with many of the terms you will be using and ideas you will be discussing.
Your aim here is to demonstrate a firm grasp of the central concepts and arguments under discussion. (c)
Provide an impressively clear exposition of the parts of the scholarly work you will have chosen to discuss.
(Notice I say parts. I do not want a summary of the whole work. Every article contains portions that are
peripheral to the main task. Your job will be to distill out the aspects of the work that bear directly on the
tasks put to you by this paper prompt.) Work to provide a reconstruction of the author’s argument in your
own words. Do not rely too heavily on quotations. They interrupt the flow of good writing, and they
function as a crutch. Some quotations, when used judiciously, are fine (even necessary). But you should aim
to reconstruct the author’s ideas more clearly than their original expression. (d) Present your own criticism
of one aspect of the author’s ideas or argument. Work to ensure that your own contribution is convincing
and compelling. It is not essential that you actually convince me, but whatever your criticism is, ideally it
will be insightful, well-argued, and accessible. (e) Give a brief conclusion. Keep it simple. It is best not to
aim for a sense of gravity when wrapping things up.